Monday, August 21, 2017

Overcoming the Scourge of Data Obsolescence

Issue #948

by Ralph Grabowski with CIMdata

"Data obsolescence" occurs when a company needs to use data longer than the CAD or PLM vendor wants to support it. When support falls by the wayside, the design firm experiences high costs and data loss as it transfers data it owns to the PLM vendor's new system.

For an everyday example, consider the beta of the first version of Word. Microsoft courageously bound a 5-1/4" diskette into a magazine, PC World, the first time this was ever attempted (1983). I still have the diskette (see figure 1) that today suffers from data obsolescence.

Figure 1: 5-1/4" diskette holding the first public release of Word from Microsoft

To run this software, the following three conditions have to be met today: 1. Hardware: a 5-1/4" floppy drive to read the data on the diskette 2. Software: a version of the MS-DOS operating system that can read and run the software 3. Hope: that the magnetic patterns after 34 years haven't faded too much to be read

Today's hardware and software are too complex to read old data in old formats stored on old media. (In case you are wondering, this early version of Word was so immature that we kept right on using WordPerfect, until Microsoft exacted its revenge through Windows, to which WordPerfect Corp failed to adjust quickly enough.)

Going to the other extreme, there are products like B-52 bombers that are 50 years old and may well operate for another 50. They have a million parts that need to be designed, tracked, maintained, and replaced. On the software side of the equation, the complexity of PLM [product lifecycle management] gives the software short shelf lives as vendors need to keep patching it and updating it with new capabilities.

We tend to think of data lasting 10-20 years at the most, but for A&D [aircraft and defense] firms, data need to be retained and accessible 30-100 years. In an attempt to solve the dichotomy, and to fix the problem of data incompatibility over time, large corporations from the aircraft and defense industries formed the A&D Action Group on Data Obsolescence. (Consulting firm CIMdata administers the group. CAD is included in CIMdata's definition of PLM.)

CIMdata earlier this month held a Webinar to explain the problem of data obsolescence and the start they have made in solving it. To begin, they listed the problems faced by action group members when working with CAD and PLM software (figure 2):

Moving data to new formats is costly. Data is lost when old concepts don't translate to new systems -- especially if software vendors go out of business or are acquired, which happens a lot in the CAD/PLM industry. In addition to the new system's price tag, design firms need to add the cost of retraining, and some employees may not even be able to retain the retraining. As a result, A&D firms tend to resist moving data to new systems, or do so slowly. For example, Boeing anticipates taking four year to ramp up new software from Dassault.

The A&D group explains, "We're not going to tell vendors what to do; they still need to innovate." But software vendors need to make their software 'obsolescence resilient'. For example, APIs [application programming interfaces] need to remain stable throughout, and data needs to be exportable. "We can't have a Big Bang approach to progress; we need to be able to swap out pieces without shutting down the business," they say. (See figure 3.)

Figure 3: What large design firms would prefer to see coming out of software vendors

And so the A&D group proposes a "system of systems," which focuses on data consumption (upper half in the figure 4, below) and data authoring (lower half). Each of the boxes represents one or more software programs, all on a common bus. Integration needs to be standards-based.

Figure 4: The software model proposed for the future of PLM and CAD

In summary, to avoid data obsolescence, the working group requires that PLM firms provide customers with transparency through roadmaps, compatibility and continuity, and upgrade processes. (See figure 5.)

Figure 5: What the Boeings and Air Buses of the world expect from PLM vendors

Q&A

The first question for CIMdata came from a software supplier:

Q: The plan looks complex. Will we have to implement all of it?

CIMdata: Larger suppliers will see the need for this. Smaller ones should implement the most important aspects. Larger suppliers will be expected by A&D to move a more open, collaborative environment.

Q: The architecture [shown in figure 4] does not show simulation or testing. Was this intentional?

A: No. Any software that manages and uses data is thought to be included, and so is included in systems engineering.

Q: Is the backbone [in figure 4] defined?

A: It is at a high level. The backbone needs more definition before people can develop software against it. We are working our way through the layers of the onion.

Q: Why are standards limited to OSLC [open service for lifecycle collaboration] and STEP[standard for the exchange of product model data]; where is JT, an ISO standard?

A: Any appropriate standards are being considered. The names you see were just representative ones shown on the slides. Once the Web site is running, the information will be more explicit. Right now we are working at the high-level, which tends to leave out details.

Ralph Grabowski: Are any solution providers part of the working group?

A: We made a conscious decision to not include PLM software providers. We want to work in a collaborative environment by ourselves. Solution providers are being kept aware as we prioritize topics of interest, and they contribute to research. We take their feedback into account.

Q: How much collaboration did you get from the auto industry? Is there a similar action plan for the automotive industry, as their needs are similar.

A: Members of our group are in communications with the automotive industry. We have an ambassador between us and the Global Automotive Action Group, who meet annually to establish PLM projects and have relationships with automotive suppliers. We have similar goals but in a different way, and so will remain separate. There is also an Industrial Action Group, who has members like Caterpillar. There is interest in applying our research to other industries

Q: Your approach seems very complex; how can it be applied to commercial products?

A: The biggest issue is how our security protocols would be applied.

Ralph Grabowski: The trend of large suppliers has been to become more proprietary, such as Dassault with 3Dexperience. Comments?

A: The marketing message of the major PLM software providers from ~1990 to ~2010 was definitely "Buy our (proprietary) solution stack to achieve a complete and integrated PLM solution." This started to change in a significant way in about 2010 due to disillusionment of industrial consumers and maturation of standards. The industry wants openness and support of standards to enable heterogeneous solution sets and incremental technology refresh -- and they are determined. The Aerospace & Defense PLM Action Group is a manifestation of this determination.

Over the last 5- to 10-years, we have been witnessing a shift in the PLM software providers' response to this pressure. While some are still delivering on a proprietary solution stack, others are developing and delivering a more open platform capable of continuous upgrades with little migration cost. In summary, most PLM software providers are offering greater openness and standards compliance today than in the past and moving to offer even more. CIMdata believes this trend will continue under persistent industry pressure.

What Ralph Grabowski Thinks

Some years ago, I attended a data translation seminar in Seattle sponsored by CADkey at which Boeing described how they move data to new systems. In short: very slowly, and very carefully. They perform many tests repeatedly on every kind of data found in the old system, and then translate through STEP. (Also of concern at the conference was the news that Adobe had that very week announced it was dumping its development of 3D PDF.)

The A&D Action Group on Data Obsolescence is an obvious outgrowth from companies like Boeing no longer wanting to go it alone. They and other giant design firms can have an obvious impact on PLM firms like Dassault, Siemens, and PTC. The software firms battle each other to land these prestigious and lucrative accounts.

All of the things that customers want are, however, at odds with what providers desire. The problem is that software vendors need differentiation and so will resist standardization, preferring to lock in customers (as Dassault does with 3Dexperience). To put it more bluntly, the customers's desire for roadmap visibility from technology providers will always be at odds with the marketing departments of suppliers.

Moving from paper on drafting boards to design files on computers had its unintended negative consequences. Where anyone can read any paper drawing at any time, files are locked away, in a way. Nevertheless, industry-wide transparency is the necessary next step for a maturing CAD industry bent on preserving and strengthening its silos -- whether in aviation, defense, BIM, or whatever design.

And Now the Rest of the News...

For late-breaking CAD news, follow upFront.eZine on Twiter at @upfrontezine.

Letters to the Editor

Re: Correcting the History of Revit

The article about Bricsys in the May 1 issue of upFront.eZine stated that Revit's "code pedigree goes back to Pro/Reflex and before that to grand-daddy Sonata".

In fact, neither the concepts nor the code base of Revit were derived from Pro/Reflex. The most recent issue of AEC magazine included my letter revealing the real relationship between Revit and Pro/Reflex. It may be seen here: http://aecmag.com/59-features/1352-celebrating-the-history-of-bim. I hope you will find it interesting and informative. - Dr. Irwin Jungreis Revit Founder

Re: How Inventor is Getting Squeezed Between Solidworks and Fusion

The editor replies: I based my claim on the number of seats Solid Edge execs reported at their user conference a couple of years ago.

- - -

Your opening paragraph rewrites history. In reality, the Rubicon project, which eventually became known an Autodesk Inventor, was underway at the time that Winchester, the start-up name for SolidWorks, was launched. John Hirschtick approached Buzz Kross at Autodesk and offered to sell Winchester to Autodesk as an alternative codebase for a PC-based, mid-market CAD program, claiming that Winchester would get Autodesk to market sooner, but Buzz/Autodesk declined. (BTW, this was not the only nascent CAD program that was offered to Autodesk at the time.)

If SolidWorks had any impact on Autodesk/Inventor, it was the reorientation of Inventor’s attitude towards AutoCAD. When Rubicon started off, it was established as a completely new codebase separate from AutoCAD, hence the project name Rubicon (the point of no return) -- unlike Mechanical Desktop which Buzz Kross’ team had developed earlier.

SolidWorks recognized that Autodesk had overlooked the masses of AutoCAD users who were eager for an industrial-grade 3D modeler, and started to penetrate the AutoCAD base luring users to SolidWorks. Autodesk in turn recognizing that their AutoCAD base was rapidly migrating to SolidWorks, and so reversed their attitude towards AutoCAD and focused on AutoCAD/Inventor interoperability and provided a migration scheme for AutoCAD users to move to Inventor. - John Callen, director of eTools marketing Lutron Electronics

- - -

Just a quick note about the Fusion 360 startup license: companies are eligible for it if they have less than $100,000 (not $1 million) annual revenue. - Claire Collins, Manufacturing PR Autodesk

I'm not sure how much market Fusion360 ever represented for Inventor. I think that the kind of people who use Fusion are those who don't want to spend, or don't have lots of money to spend. Experienced industrial types are aware of the serious security problems Fusion360 represents (by forcing them into a porous Internet environment) in addition to upcoming uncontained costs. Autodesk will get desperate as their [subscirption-cloud] scheme folds, and will raise prices on everything in an attempt to stave off disaster.

I have current versions of both Inventor and Solid Edge. The cumbersome logic behind Inventor is painful to use. The extra clicks, counterintuitive menus, and lack of tools that I am accustomed to in Sold Edge killed any interest I had in seriously attempting to learn Inventors. Inventor is its own worst enemy.

It survived because it was perpetual-seat software from a big, somewhat-reputable company. It now has nothing going for it, and I guess you have hit the nail on the head. Autodesk will kill it off and then they don't have to worry about seats of Inventor anymore.

Autodesk needs to go bankrupt to re-learn the value of voluntary two-way transactions based upon mutual benefit. The idea they have isthat we as (ex, in my case) customers exist solely to serve and fund them is going to fail them. I, for one, have my popcorn in hand with a smile on my face as I watch the mighty fall. - Dave Ault

Notable Quotable

"Apple's 2012 MacBook Pro with Retina display [ships] with a proprietary SSD, non-upgradeable RAM, and a glued-down lithium-ion battery; the device still received an EPEAT [Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool] Gold rating. When criticized for the Retina’s inclusion on the registry, EPEAT said that its product verification committee had determined that products were upgradeable if they had an externally accessible port." - Thomas Claburn. The Registerhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/08/green_product_awards_selfcongratulatory_sham_report/